wooah...i don't think my remarks should be read as a complaint about the
vancouver conference, nor were they a criticism of the commendable efforts
of its organisers. i doubt andy was really criticising in these ways
either, but he can speak for himself. my point was that this net forum
seemed to have been overtaken with discussion about conference attendance
anxieties and the momentum of debate on earlier issues, such as the ibg/rgs
merger and the shell issue, was slowing, if not dissipating altogether.
steve's point about the difficulty of 'speaking' in this mail/male forum is
well made. are there ways around this? but i think that one shouldn't
underestimate just how democratic email access now is. there are lots of
people reading and _participating_ thus, even if they don't always _speak_.
is it any different at embodied conferences? i could never really
understand the earlier fuss about lurkers; i'm happy for people to read and
choose their moment of utterance.
the amount of postgrads who have spoken in the forum is testimony to the
democratic possibilities of this forum (how many of them will be able to
make any international meetings?). similarly, there are many of us outside
the britain-north america circuit who have no other connection to the
emergent critical geography debates beyond this forum.
cheeries
brendan gleeson
Dr Brendan Gleeson Telephone: 61 6 249-4603
Research Fellow
Urban Research Program Fax: 61 6 249-0312
Research School of Social Sciences
The Australian National University
CANBERRA ACT 0200
AUSTRALIA email:
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|